WMU 517 Winefred Lake Aerial (Alces alces) and White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Survey January 2013

Grant Chapman, Wildlife Biologist & Justin Gilligan, Wildlife Monitoring Biologist

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Operations Division /Edmonton, September 2013

1 Table of Contents

Permission to Quote...... 4 Distribution...... 4 Acknowledgements...... 4 Abstract...... 4 Introduction...... 5 Methods...... 6 Study Area...... 6 Survey Personnel…………………………………………………………………………………..7 Survey Protocol…………...... 7 Results...... 12 Moose survey...... 12 White-tailed deer survey...... 15 Weather and flight times and Safety…………………………………………………………….16 Discussion...... 19 Moose Survey…..………………………………………………………………………………….20 White-tailed deer Survey……………...... 21 Other wildlife sightings…………………………………………………………………………….22 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..……..…24 References………………………………………………………………………………………………….26

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Location of WMU 517 Winefred Lake ………………..………………………………...... 6 Figure 2 – Moose and white-tailed deer survey block strata………………………………………10-11 Figure 3 – Moose and white-tailed deer observations during stratification flights………………13-14 Figure 4 - Moose and white-tailed deer observations during detailed survey unit flights...... 17-18

List of Tables

Table 1 – Survey personnel and duties…….…..…………………………………………………….....7 Table 2 – Daily temperatures during survey…………………………………………..….……….…...16 Table 3 – Comparison of population parameter for moose in WMUs near 517...... 19 Table 4 – Historical population estimates, moose density and age/sex ratios for WMU 517...... 20

2 Table 5 – WMU 512 pre- season population estimates, permits allotted and reported success...... 20 Table 6 – 2013 regional WMU moose populations, permits and 2012 harvest success………….21 Table 7.- Historical White-tailed deer surveys and parameters near WMU 517...... 21 Table 8 - Historical White-tailed deer harvest and population in WMU 517 2002-2013...... 22

Appendices

Appendix 1 – WMU 517 sampling units, area, number of moose and white-tailed deer observed during stratification flights and assigned strata..………………...….……………..27 Appendix 2 – Data summary of sampling units surveyed, animals observed and particulars for each unit...... 31 Appendix 3 – Moose and white-tailed deer population calculations from the Quadrat Survey Method…………………………………………………………………………………….33

3 Permission to Quote

This report contains preliminary information and interpretations and may be subject to future revision. To prevent the issuance of misleading information, persons wishing to quote from this report, to cite it in bibliographies, or to use it in any other form must first obtain permission from the author.

Distribution Copies of this report have been sent to the Wildlife Manager for the Lower Athabasca Region, the district offices in Lac La Biche, Athabasca, and St. Paul, the Coordinator for provincial wildlife surveys and Provincial Big Game specialist.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Delaney Anderson, Jordan Besenski, Traci Morgan and Kristina Norstrom of AESRD and Larry Roy of Alberta Innovates Technology Futures for their continuous work throughout this survey. Gratitude is extended to Canwest Aviation and Delta Helicopters for their contributions to the survey. Appreciation is also extended to Cody Clark and Monette Gauthier of AESRD Forestry for flight-following and Ashley Burley for arranging accommodations in the Leismer Fire Base.

Report format and text have been modelled after previous reports. This survey was funded by the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program (Governments of Canada and Alberta), Alberta Innovates Technology Futures and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development.

Abstract An aerial moose (Alces alces) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) survey using a modified Gasaway sampling technique was conducted in WMU 517 between January 8 and January 17, 2013. A total of 107 moose and 94 white-tailed deer were observed during the stratification flights and another 87 moose and 157 white-tailed deer were classified during the intensive helicopter survey of 15 survey units. Stratification of the WMU resulted in survey units being assigned to one of three strata corresponding to the number of animals per survey unit for each species. Moose strata were 0, 1-2 and 3-5 and deer strata were 0, 1-3 and 4-8 animals per survey unit for the low, medium, and high strata respectively. Moose and deer were classified by age, sex and antler classification during detailed survey unit flights. The moose

4 population was estimated to be 305 (±136 or ±44.5%; 90% confidence interval) with a density of 0.06 moose/km2 and ranged 0.00-0.31 moose/km2 with a bull:cow:calf sex ratio o 63:100:84. The moose population may have increased slightly over the last survey in 2006 which estimated 224 moose but remains far below the 800 moose population goal which indicates significant management issues in the WMU. The white-tailed deer population goal is 790 deer and the population was estimated to be 693 (±367 or ±53%; 90% confidence interval) with a density of 0.15 white-tailed deer/km2 with survey units ranging 0.00-0.76 deer/km2. Due to probable antler drop prior to survey dates, no buck:doe:fawn ratio was estimated however the adult to fawn ratio was 2.65:1. Other species encountered were woodland caribou, sharp-tailed grouse, ruffed grouse, northern goshawk, great gray owl, Canada lynx, coyote, pileated woodpecker and gray wolf. No population estimates were made for those species. Implementation of the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan and monitoring will be important tools and information sources to guide future land use decisions to ensure this moose population and landscape values are maintained in the area.

Introduction

Moose (Alces alces) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are 2 of the priority big game species in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 517 which provides valuable recreational hunting, first nations subsistence harvest, and non-consumptive wildlife viewing opportunity. The objective of this survey was to obtain a current moose population estimate for WMU 517, (last flown in 2006) and to compare this to surrounding WMU’s and with past estimates. Aerial game surveys provide population and density estimates as well as valuable habitat use information. When conducted at regular intervals (ideally every 5 years in northeast Alberta), surveys provide critical data for assessing ungulate and other wildlife population trends. These data enable managers to assess population condition which informs regional moose management. The stratification flights for this survey also permitted data collection for Woodland Caribou, which were utilized as a component of concurrent caribou population study in the East Side Athabasca Range Caribou herd. Conducting these surveys gives AESRD staff an additional opportunity to assess current habitat conditions and note changes in the landscape.

5 Methods

Study Area WMU 517 is located directly north of the Air Weapons Range (CLAWR) and is situated between the Saskatchewan border to the east and the hamlet of Conklin to the west (Figure 1). Most of the area consists of black spruce forest and muskeg bog interspersed with mixed-wood and jack pine-dominated uplands. Although there is no agriculture in the WM, timber harvesting occurs throughout the WMU and the level of oil and gas exploration and development is extremely high west of Winefred Lake with a proliferation of industrial access and human activity in and around Conklin. WMU 517 comprises portions of the Cold Lake and East Side caribou ranges, in addition to populations of other managed furbearers and ungulates.

Figure 1: Location of WMU 517 Winefred Lake.

6

Survey Personnel

Table 1: Personnel involved in the survey including their affiliation and duties during the survey. Personnel Affiliation Duties Delaney Anderson AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Observer (left and right) Sarah Blancher Delta Helicopters Pilot – rotary wing Jordan Besenski AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Observer (left and right) Grant Chapman AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Co-lead/ Observer (left and right) Cody Clark AESRD – Forestry Division Flight following Monette Gauthier AESRD – Forestry Division Flight following Barb Maile AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Observer (left and right) Dmitriy Mironenko Delta Helicopters Pilot – rotary wing James Neil Canwest Aviation Pilot – fixed wing Traci Morgan AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Co-lead/ Navigator Kristina Norstrom AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Lead/Navigator Larry Roy Alberta Innovates Technology Observer Futures (right) Scott Turner Canwest Aviation Pilot – fixed wing

Survey protocol A random stratified block survey is essentially a snapshot of the population at the time of the survey and will result in a population estimate with confidence limits and statistics about population structure such as ratios of bulls and young to cows. Stratified random block surveys in Alberta (specifically the modified Gasaway technique) are designed to be accurate at a 90% confidence interval, i.e. 9 out of 10 times (Lynch, 1997). The entire area to be surveyed is divided into survey units (5 minutes of longitude X 5 minutes of Latitude) resulting in blocks of about 47 km2 at these latitudes. Each survey unit is assigned to one of the stratum types (High, Medium or Low), based on the observed number of animals in that survey unit. A stratification flight is conducted over all survey units to determine their strata. Confidence limits are a test of overall accuracy of stratification with confidence limits greater with more variation in one or more of the strata. The Alberta method aims for confidence limits of +/-20%. A variety of information sources can be used during the stratification to ensure that survey units are

7 assigned into the proper stratum (ex. Habitat, snow tracks, local knowledge, and known use). Once all units have been stratified, 5 survey units are randomly selected from each stratum and flown in a seed order and intensively searched using helicopters. All animals are counted and classified as to sex and age (juvenile or adult) and where possible by antler size (small, medium or large) as per AESRD’s aerial Ungulate Survey Protocol (AESRD 2010). Data is used to determine average density in each stratum and ratios of bulls and calves to cows.

WMU 517 was stratified for moose densities using a Cessna 185 (equipped with skis) and a Cessna 206 fixed wing aircrafts (January 8 – 10, 2013). Flight maps to aid in navigation were prepared using ArcGIS 9.3. A one minute latitudinal grid, which is equivalent to a 1.8 km separation between lines, was overlain on the WMU and followed. One airplane and crew was used. The team followed the east/west survey line in sequence, which mimicked a minute of latitude. Approximate altitude and ground speed during flights were 100 metres above ground and 140 km/h respectively. This allowed observers to detect animals below and within 250-300 metres on either side of the aircraft, for approximately 25 percent coverage of the WMU. Three observers, including the navigator in the front, were required for the survey. Species and number of animals were recorded with a waypoint taken using a Garmin handheld GPS unit. Stratification observations were digitally rendered onto the sampling unit grid. Given air speed and waypoint record time, a lag may occur between when an animal was observed and the location digitally recorded. To ensure accurate stratification, waypoints that occurred near a sampling unit boundary were assessed based on direction of air travel. Waypoints were re- assigned to the appropriate unit if they fell within 100 m of the unit boundary and conditions warranted.

To facilitate population estimates for both moose and white-tailed deer, survey blocks were stratified in based on natural breaks in animals observed per survey block from the stratification flights. This method was chosen because the stratification flights yielded low moose observations, ranging from 0-5 moose and 0-8 white-tailed deer observations per survey unit. Survey units with 0, 1-2 and 3-5 moose observations and survey units with 0, 1-3 and 4-8 white- tailed deer observations were stratified as low, medium and high respectively. Twenty-four survey blocks were randomly selected representing 8 survey units for each low, medium and high density moose strata. From these 24 randomly generated survey blocks 15 were flown in total. While survey blocks flown were chosen primarily based on moose stratification, certain blocks were skipped in favor of subsequent blocks to ensure 3 of each low, medium and high

8 strata were selected for both moose and white-tailed deer. White-tailed deer survey blocks normally measure 3 minutes of longitude by 5 minutes of latitude, however, in order to effectively survey both moose and white-tailed deer concurrently, this survey used survey units measuring 5 minutes of longitude by 5 minutes of latitude (the standard for moose surveys).

The 15 selected survey units were intensively searched using 2 Bell 206 helicopters equipped with rear bubble windows and 2 survey crews from January 12 – 17, 2013. Crews consisted of a pilot, a navigator and 2 rear seat observers. Units were flown in an east-west direction with a flight line separation of 400 m (0.25 minute or 15 seconds of latitude). Observations were recorded within 200m of either side of the machine, allowing for total coverage of the area. Altitude was approximately 90 metres above ground and air speed was approximately 80 km/h, increasing to100 km/h in more open areas. Moose were classified using these criteria: presence of antlers or pedicel scars, presence of vulva patch, and presence of a calf. White-tailed deer were classified using these criteria: presence of antlers or pedicel scars, body size and presence of a fawn. All wildlife observations were recorded and the locations were digitally recorded.

9

10

Figure 2: Moose and white-tailed deer survey unit stratification as determined by initial stratification flights (survey units with 0, 1-2 and 3-5 moose observations and survey units with 0, 1-3 and 4-8 white-tailed deer observations were stratified as low, medium and high respectively).

11

Results

Moose survey results Fixed wing flights for stratification yielded observations of 107 moose (Figure 3). During the intensive search of 15 sampling units, 87 moose (20 bulls, 32 cows, 27 calves, 8 unclassified) (Figure 4) were observed. The Quadrat Survey spreadsheet program generated a moose population estimate of 305 (±136; 90% confidence interval) with a density of 0.06 moose/km2 (Appendix 3) which ranged from 0.00-0.31 moose/km2. The sex ratio (bulls:cows:calves) was estimated at 63:100:84 based on observed moose within and adjacent to surveyed blocks. Confidence limits were poor at ±44.5% of the actual estimate.

12 13

Figure 3. Moose and white-tailed deer observations during stratification flights.

14 White-tailed deer survey results The stratification flights yielded 94 white-tailed deer observations (Figure 3). During the intensive search of 15 sampling units, 157 white-tailed deer were observed (Figure 4). The Quadrat Survey spreadsheet program generated a white-tailed deer population estimate of 693

(±367; 90% confidence interval) with a density of 0.15 white-tailed deer/km2 which ranged from

0.00-0.76 deer/km2 (Appendix 3). The sex ratio (buck:doe:fawn) was not estimated due to probable antler drop prior to survey dates. Confidence limits were poor at ±53% of the actual estimate.

Additional observations included 1 Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), 1 coyote (Canis latrans), 3 gray wolves (Canis lupus), 1 great gray owl (Strix nebulosa), one pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), 14 sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) and 23 woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus).

Weather and flight times and Safety Overall, survey conditions were variable with excellent snow coverage, scattered fog and freezing precipitation causing icing, and light to moderate winds. Flat light and fog made visibility of tracks difficult at times. There were start time delays due to low ceiling and/or precipitation with weather completely prevented surveying on January 11 (ice fog) and January 15 (freezing rain). Temperatures during the survey dates ranged from 3.1 to -31.5°C (see Table 2).

Weather was a serious issue and resulted in not only an undesirable extended survey but eventually required that the survey be terminated prematurely as a severe snow storm arrived mid morning after flying 15 survey units and aircraft were subsequently grounded for 28 hours and would have created a 48 delay in the survey from 11am Thursday until Saturday morning. Total stratification flight time was approximately 18.1 hours; block survey rotary flight time was 18.7 hours.

Safety was a significant issue during this survey with machines being unable to fly at scheduled departure times, grounded in the field for up to 2 hours, or making it difficult to predict a safe and reasonable flight window, or travel in preferred routes, with aircraft experiencing icing in remote areas at times. In order to reduce weather issues, the survey base was changed from Lac La biche to the ESRD Leismer Fire base, near Conklin, AB for the last 2 days of survey

15 which eliminated 100km of travel to the survey area. During a barrelled refuelling stop a rotary- wing pilot experienced a fuel splash to the face that required appropriate first aid treatment which would have been serious had several eyewash stations and running water not been available.

Table 2: Temperatures on survey days at Christina Lake near Winefred Lake (near the centre of WMU 517). Retrieved September 10, 2013 from Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development http://agriculture.alberta.ca/acis/alberta-weather-data-viewer.jsp Date Air Temp. Min. (°C) Air Temp. Max. (°C) Daily Avg. (°C) January 8 -11.2 -5.9 -8.5 January 9 -18.7 -9.0 -13.1 January 10 -30.0 -14.7 -23.1 January 11 -31.5 -15.5 -22.1 January 12 -22.3 -13.6 -18.7 January 13 -25.4 -19.2 -21.9 January 14 -21.7 -6.9 -13.2 January 15 -13.2 3.1 -5.7 January 16 -23.3 -13.4 -15.5 January 17 -24.7 -13.2 -17.8

16 17

Figure 4. Moose and white-tailed deer observations during detailed survey unit flights, including off-block observations.

18 Discussion

Moose survey discussion The results of the 2006 moose survey for WMU 517 estimated a population of 224 moose ±32.7% (151-197 moose) and a density of 0.05 moose/km2. In 2013, the estimate increased slightly to 305 moose ±44.5% (169-441 moose) which overlaps the range of the previous estimate. The goal of this type of moose survey was to obtain a moose population estimate with a confidence limit of ±20% and ±44.5% is a much poorer result than this goal. The survey team decided that it was best to end this survey as it would have been unreasonable to continue flying given the results of the first 15 survey units flown and the low likelihood of more survey time improving confidence limits. Additional considerations included the arrival of a significant snow storm that had grounded aircraft and was going to cause a 2 day delay in safe flight operations followed by a poor and uncertain long range weather forecast.

WMU 517 has a low moose density, when compared to regional WMU’s with the exception of WMU 529’s 2009 estimate (See Table 3).

Table 3: Comparison of population parameters for moose in WMUs near 517. WMU Date Last Population Density Classification Surveyed (moose/km2) (bull:cow:calf) 512 2013 0.30 35:100:31 515 2004 0.24 39:100:68 519 2008 0.15 36:100:35 529 2009 0.04 60:100:87 726 Cold Lake Air Weapons Range - Never surveyed; planned for 2013 517 2013 0.06 63:100:84

When reviewing the population estimate survey history for WMU 517 (see Table 4) the results demonstrate that the population of moose increased by 36% since 2006 (although with a larger confidence limit by 11.8%) yet has decreased since the 1993 20 year high estimate of 550 moose. The management goal for WMU 517 is 800 moose (Table 6), and while the slight increase in the 2013 population estimate is a small step towards this goal, there remain significant moose management issues and survey issues preventing recovery of this goal and obtaining an accurate estimate of the population. Historical impacts to the population include high first nations harvest, metis harvest, poaching activity, and significant industrial land uses that reduce habitat quality and survival of some cohorts.

19

Table 4: Historical population estimates, moose density and age/sex ratios for WMU 517.

Year Survey Type Population Confidence Moose Bull:Cow:Calf Estimate Limit Density Ratio 1993 Classified 550 n/a 0.12 70:100:49 2000 Random block 398 ±31.3% 0.08 37:100:34 2006 Random block 224 ±32.7% 0.05 83:100:39 2011 *Modified N/A N/A 0.07141:100:41 Gasaway 2013 Random block 305 ±44.5% 0.06 63:100:84 *Devon Canada – Did not follow 2010 AESRD Protocol Recent survey age sex ratios (83:100:39 in 2006 and 63:100:84 in 2013) are worrisome as they do not reflect the bull:cow ratio that should be expected in a WMU managed under a bull only harvest regime with both early and late seasons. This change in the ratio may be a result of an increased harvest of cows (via poaching activity, high subsistence Aboriginal hunting, and other land use impacts that affect moose survival. Additionally sightability issues are likely reducing confidence due to the significant difficulty in seeing animals in a old growth forested landscape and areas dominated by dense canopy closure. WMU 517 has provided the minimum possible number of special licenses (5 licences per season for both early and the late) since 2011 (Tables 5 and 6) and will continue to provide very little recreational harvest opportunities until the population makes a significant recovery.

Table 5: WMU 512 pre-hunting season population estimates, permits allotted and reported success.

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Population 225 219 217 208 218 280 Estimate WMU 517 43 26 Early 9 Early 5 Early 5 Early 5 Permits Late 12 Late 5 Late 5 Late 5 WMU 517 31 36 33 0 20 n/a Success

20

Table 6: 2013 regional WMU moose populations, permits and 2012 harvest success. WMU Pop. 2012 Pop. 2013 Pop. 2012 Harvest Goal Estimate Estimate Permit Success Numbers (%) 503 400 756 739 Bull 150 Bull 23 Cow 30 Cow 69 512 2000 1619 2562 Early 49 Early 41 Late 25 Late 43 515 1000 594 643 Early 42 Early 31 Late 68 Late 28 517 800 212 280 Early 5 Early 22 Late 5 Late 22 516 500 970 900 Early 105 Early 30 Late 130 Late 19

White-tailed deer survey discussion The 2013 population estimate for white-tailed deer in WMU 517 was a pioneering attempt to determine the numbers of white-tailed deer in this region of north-eastern Alberta. The estimated white-tailed deer population in WMU 517 of 693 (±367 or ±53%) resulted in a density of 0.15 white-tailed deer/km2 across the entire WMU. This average density is much lower than the range of densities observed 0.04-1.86 deer/km2 in historical surveys in the region (Table 7). While some survey units within WMU 517 did reach densities as high as 0.76 deer/km2, these higher density survey units were often associated with habitat containing upland deciduous vegetation and river drainages with topographical relief which is often the preferred wintering habitat for deer in this region. A total of 114 adults and 43 fawns were observed in the detailed survey unit flights resulting in a ratio of 2.65 adults per fawn.

Table 7. Historical White-tailed deer surveys and parameters near WMU 517

21

WMU 517 deer management goals are similar to other WMU’s in the region where deer range overlaps with caribou range. Currently general hunting licenses allow for the harvest of up to 3 deer per year per person, with reported hunting pressure and harvest low.

Table 8. Historical White-tailed deer harvest and population in WMU 517 2002-2013

The winter of 2012-13 proved to be very harsh with high snowfalls and interspersed rain and warming bouts which resulted in a deep crusted snowpack that wolves and coyotes could run on late in the winter. High deer mortality was observed in collared adult female deer ~40% in WMU 517 during the time from March – May 2013 as reported by the boreal deer study (Fisher and Hiltz 2013). Anecdotal sightings by wildlife officers, biologists, and contacts working in the area reported visual estimates of body condition and the lack of fawns, which likely resulted in a winter mortality of ~50% of adults and a ~95% of the fawn cohort. An adjusted post winter population estimate incorporating this significant additional mortality would reduce the population to 355 deer in the WMU with a density of 0.06 deer/km2. Winter mortality is common

22 in the northern extent of a species range and it was concluded by Dawe (2011) that white-tailed deer distribution changes in this region of Alberta have been driven largely by changes in winter and summer climate.

Enumerating white-tailed deer populations in northeast Alberta and understanding their occupation of the boreal forest provides important information to guide woodland caribou recovery and management. Dawe (2011) reported that northward expansion of white-tailed deer has been and continues to be facilitated by a warming climate and the increase of land use that results in forests disturbed by agriculture, forestry and oil and gas well pads. Dawe (2011) predicts that the majority of Alberta’s boreal areas will be occupied by white-tailed deer by the year 2050, with considerable range expansion predicted in the Lower Athabasca Region. White-tailed deer are an important alternate prey source for wolves (Dawe 2011; Fisher and Hiltz 2013), and depredation by wolves has been deemed one of the most significant causes of direct mortality of woodland caribou on landscapes heavily impacted by linear disturbances (Environment Canada 2012). Understanding white-tailed deer abundance and distribution in will assist management of the species as well as contribute to the recovery and management of woodland caribou.

Estimating white-tailed deer populations in coniferous dominated forests during winter is made difficult due to dense canopy cover (Fisher and Hiltz 2013). Detectability of deer in this study is further limited by the fact that white-tailed deer are less detectable as winter progresses (i.e. time since the rut - November) (Fisher and Hiltz 2013). Fisher and Hiltz 2013, report that deer exhibit the lowest detectability from January to March which is a possible contributing factor to this surveys poor confidence limit of ±53%, which is much greater than the ±20% confidence limit goal for this type of survey. Fisher and Hiltz (2013) concluded that white-tailed deer occupied 96% of their infrared camera trap sites in WMU 517. During this modified Gasaway surveys stratification flights, white-tailed deer were observed in only 69.9% of survey units (72 of 103) which suggest that flight crews failed to detect white-tailed deer. Further support of this is noted as often fresh tracks could be seen in the snow in areas where no deer were observed. Detection variance and survey conditions that extended the survey length are the two main factors that prevented this survey from a obtaining a better confidence interval.

While our 2013 population estimate of white-tailed deer in WMU 517 carries a low confidence limit (693 ±367 or 53%) it is a starting point for aerially surveying white-tailed deer in Alberta’s

23 northern boreal region and highlights the need for improved survey methods. As predicted by Dawe (2011), Fisher and Hiltz (2013) concluded that white-tailed deer distribution is stable or increasing across this landscape. Future work is required to refine survey techniques for this species. AESRD and Alberta Innovates Technology Futures have partnered on a project studying white-tailed deer in northern Alberta (Fisher and Hiltz 2013) and are currently assessing the ability of remote infrared camera traps to estimate white-tailed deer populations. In addition, they employ gps collars to monitor deer movement and habitat use in WMU 517 which will benefit deer management across Alberta’s Boreal region.

Other wildlife sightings During the survey, a number of other species were observed in WMU 517 including woodland caribou, great gray owl, coyote, sharp-tailed grouse, ruffed grouse, northern goshawk, Canada lynx, pileated woodpecker and gray wolf. While no population estimates were made for these species, knowledge of their presence and locations contributes to the overall understanding of the ecology in the area, future landscape planning and toward the recovery and management of woodland caribou in the northeast.

Recommendations

Moose are an important resource for all Albertans and population health in this WMU needs close monitoring given the inability to reach the target population of 800 moose since the 1990s. Monitoring moose populations at regular intervals and also the effectiveness of wildlife land use integrated standards, guidelines, policy and decisions should be a priority to ensure habitat quality and wildlife values are maintained. Understanding moose populations in WMU 517 is further justified in that they are a metric for monitoring biodiversity under the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan and the Land Use Framework. Surveys are scheduled for every 5 years, but have historically gone underfunded and have been surveyed less frequently. The recent creation of the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program may address this issue.

AESRD has recently improved the capabilities of our hunting and fishing network to enable volunteer online hunter harvest surveys, which better report hunter efforts and success for big game. The survey results provide valuable game management information. .Moose special licenses will be issued to reflect current estimates for recreational hunter harvest for this area which is imprecise due to small sample sizes. Subsistence harvest information for this WMU is poorly understood but is estimated to be relatively high as compared to other WMU’s in the

24 region. Accurate First Nation harvest data is not available, but is critical to better understand moose population dynamics and would significantly help inform moose management in this WMU.

Further moose population inquiry should be assessed in this area to better determine local factors that are influencing it’s productivity. Currently there are a number of research studies underway (academic, industrial, government and non-government) that contribute to the better understanding of moose, white-tailed deer, caribou and wolf ecology in the region. These will be important contributions to the future management of wildlife in the Lower Athabasca Region.

Improving on our ability to estimate white-tailed deer populations in boreal regions of Alberta is important to guide the management of white-tailed deer in northern Alberta. It is recommended that future surveys in the boreal mixed wood select a survey design that will yield better results and an accuracy adequate for management purposes. Future management should incorporate any new findings from the AESRD and Alberta Innovates Technology Futures Boreal white- tailed deer study which is planned to be completed in 2015.

25 References

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2010. Aerial ungulate survey protocol manual. Produced by ASRD, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 65 pp.

Dawe, K.L. 2011. Factors Driving Range Expansion of White-tailed Deer, (Odocoileus virginianus, in the boreal forest of northern Alberta, Canada. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Alberta. 159 pp.

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. xi + 138 pp.

Fisher, J.T. and Hiltz, M. 2013. The Alberta Boreal Deer Project – 2012-2013 Fiscal Year Report. Unpublished report by Alberta Innovates Technology Futures. 26 pp.

Lynch, G. 1997. Northern Moose Program Moose Survey Field Manual. Unpublished report by Wildlife Management Consulting. 68pp

26 Appendix 1

WMU 517 sampling units, area, number of moose and white-tailed deer observed in stratification flight and assigned strata.

White- White- Area Moose tailed deer tailed deer Area excluding density/ density/ density/ Moose km2 (area Number km2 (area km2 (area Stratum including large 2 density/ km excludes of white- includes excludes value Survey large bodies of Number (areaincludes large tailed large large Stratum white- Block bodies of water of Moose large bodies bodies of deer bodies of bodies of value tailed # water km2 km2 Observed of water) water) Observed water) water) moose deer 1 39.2 39.2 2 0.05 0.05 0 0 0 Med Low 2 42.2 42.2 2 0.05 0.05 4 0.09 0.09 Med High 3 58.1 54.0 4 0.07 0.07 7 0.12 0.13 High High 4 50.8 50.1 5 0.1 0.1 4 0.08 0.08 High High 5 62.7 61.4 4 0.06 0.07 4 0.06 0.07 High High 6 55.3 51.9 0 0 0 2 0.04 0.04 low Med 7 32.5 31.3 1 0.03 0.03 0 0 0 Med Low 8 39.6 39.6 2 0.05 0.05 3 0.08 0.08 Med Med 9 41.0 41.0 2 0.05 0.05 7 0.17 0.17 Med High 10 44.6 44.6 2 0.04 0.04 9 0.2 0.2 Med High 11 48.3 48.3 2 0.04 0.04 8 0.17 0.17 Med High 12 48.3 38.4 2 0.04 0.05 3 0.06 0.08 Med Med 13 48.3 43.5 0 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 low Med 14 48.3 48.2 3 0.06 0.06 4 0.08 0.08 High High 15 48.3 37.6 0 0 0 3 0.06 0.08 low High 16 48.3 45.4 2 0.04 0.04 2 0.04 0.04 Med Med 17 48.3 48.3 0 0 0 3 0.06 0.06 low High 18 48.3 48.3 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 19 47.2 47.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 20 36.9 36.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 21 46.3 46.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 22 48.4 48.4 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 23 48.4 48.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 27 24 48.4 48.4 4 0.08 0.08 1 0.02 0.02 High Med 25 48.4 48.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 26 48.4 47.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 27 48.4 47.0 2 0.04 0.04 1 0.02 0.02 Med Med 28 48.4 48.4 2 0.04 0.04 2 0.04 0.04 Med Med 29 48.4 47.8 1 0.02 0.02 3 0.06 0.06 Med Med 30 48.4 46.6 1 0.02 0.02 5 0.1 0.11 Med High 31 47.7 47.7 0 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 low Med 32 26.8 26.8 2 0.07 0.07 3 0.11 0.11 Med High 33 54.7 54.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 34 48.5 47.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 35 48.5 48.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 36 48.5 48.3 3 0.06 0.06 0 0 0 High Low 37 48.5 46.6 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 38 48.5 48.3 1 0.02 0.02 1 0.02 0.02 Med Med 39 48.5 47.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 40 48.5 48.2 2 0.04 0.04 1 0.02 0.02 Med Med 41 48.5 48.1 1 0.02 0.02 1 0.02 0.02 Med Med 42 48.5 48.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 43 48.5 47.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 44 48.5 48.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 45 46.3 45.3 4 0.09 0.09 0 0 0 High Low 46 46.4 46.4 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 47 48.6 48.6 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 48 48.6 48.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 49 48.6 48.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 50 48.6 48.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 51 48.6 48.3 0 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 low Med 52 48.6 45.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 53 48.6 48.6 0 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 low Med 54 48.6 48.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 55 48.6 43.3 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 56 48.6 42.1 2 0.04 0.05 0 0 0 Med Low

28 57 48.6 42.3 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 58 48.4 44.8 1 0.02 0.02 2 0.04 0.04 Med Med 59 21.2 21.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 60 22.0 22.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 61 48.7 48.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 62 48.7 48.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 63 48.7 48.7 3 0.06 0.06 1 0.02 0.02 High Med 64 48.7 48.7 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 65 48.7 48.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 66 48.7 48.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 67 48.7 39.4 2 0.04 0.05 0 0 0 Med Low 68 48.7 14.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 69 48.7 45.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 70 48.7 48.3 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 71 48.7 48.7 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 72 48.7 48.7 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 73 48.7 48.7 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 74 46.5 46.5 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 75 46.6 46.0 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 76 48.8 48.1 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 77 48.8 48.8 0 0 0 2 0.04 0.04 low Med 78 48.8 47.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 79 48.8 48.8 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 80 48.8 17.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 81 48.8 19.0 3 0.06 0.16 2 0.04 0.11 High Med 82 48.8 34.0 4 0.08 0.12 0 0 0 High Low 83 48.8 48.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 84 48.8 42.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 85 48.8 48.4 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 86 48.8 48.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 87 48.8 48.8 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 88 48.8 48.3 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 High Low 89 48.8 48.8 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 90 43.7 36.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 91 67.1 48.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 92 50.3 50.3 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 93 50.3 47.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 29 94 50.3 50.3 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 95 50.3 50.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 96 50.3 50.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 97 50.3 50.3 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 98 50.3 50.3 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 99 50.3 49.1 1 0.02 0.02 2 0.04 0.04 Med Med 100 50.3 49.4 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 101 70.6 59.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 102 51.2 51.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 103 54.7 54.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

30 Appendix 2

Data summary of survey blocks surveyed, moose observed, density and particulars for each block. Moose density Moose density (area includes (area excludes Unidentified Moose Date Survey Block Stratum Bulls Cows Calves large bodies of large bodies of Adults Total water water 2 2 moose/km ) moose/km ) January 12 50 low 0 1 0 0 1 0.02 0.02

January 12 63 high 0 1 0 0 1 0.02 0.02

January 12 77 low 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 12 85 med 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 12 100 med 0 1 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 January 13 10 med 6 4 4 0 14 0.31 0.31 January 13 14 high 1 1 1 0 3 0.06 0.06 January 13 89 med 1 0 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 January 13 93 low 1 1 1 0 3 0.06 0.06 January 14 5 high 1 6 4 2 13 0.21 0.21 January 14 32 med 0 2 2 0 4 0.15 0.15 January 14 22 med 2 1 1 0 4 0.08 0.08 January 16 8 med 0 1 2 0 3 0.08 0.08 January 17 36 high 0 1 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 January 17 56 med 3 2 2 0 7 0.14 0.17

31 Data summary of survey units surveyed, white-tailed deer observed, density and particulars for each block. White-tailed White-tailed deer density deer density Survey Antlered Antlerles Total White- Date Stratum Fawns (area includes (area excludes Block Bucks s Adults tailed deer large bodies of large bodies of water deer/km2) water deer/km2) January 12 50 low 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 12 63 med 0 6 1 7 0.14 0.14 January 12 77 med 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 12 85 low 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 12 100 low 0 8 1 9 0.18 0.18 January 13 10 high 0 20 10 30 0.67 0.67 January 13 14 high 0 19 10 29 0.60 0.60 January 13 89 low 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 13 93 low 0 1 1 2 0.04 0.04 January 14 5 high 1 19 13 33 0.53 0.54 January 14 32 high 0 7 0 7 0.26 0.26 January 14 22 low 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 16 8 med 1 23 6 30 0.76 0.76 January 17 36 low 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 17 56 low 0 9 1 10 0.21 0.24

32 Appendix 3

WMU 517 moose and white-tailed deer population calculations from the Quadrat Survey Method program for January 2013.

QUADRAT SURVEY METHOD 1.WMU: 517 2. Date: 3.Species: Moose 6. Note Block 5. Aircraft Type: 206 Conditions: 103 Total Estimated Pop. 305 +/- 136 Lower / Upper Limits 169 to 440 Plus or Minus % 44.5% Density 0.06 /sq.km. 0.17 /sq.mi. Males Females Juveniles Total Sex & Age Ratios - - - - Sample 20 32 27 79 M/F/J Ratio 63 100 84 Percent 25% 41% 34% - Proportions 0.25 0.41 0.34 - 90 % C.L. 0.06 0.07 0.07 - % +/- 25.3 17.8 20.4 - Population Split 77 123 104 305

QUADRAT SURVEY METHOD 1.WMU: 517 2. Date: January 2013 3.Species: White-tailed Deer 5. Aircraft Type: 6. Conditions: Total Estimated Pop. 693 +/- 367 Lower / Upper Limits 326 to 1060 Plus or Minus % 53.0% Density 0.15 /sq.km. 0.38 /sq.mi. Males Females Juveniles Total Sex & Age Ratios - - - - Sample 0 0 0 0 M/F/J Ratio 0 100 0 Percent 0% 0% 0% - Proportions 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 90 % C.L. 0.00 0.00 0.00 - % +/- 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Population Split 0 0 0 0

33